See also: IRC log
<trackbot> Date: 14 April 2009
<DaveS> dave S here
<Bob> agenda: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-ws-resource-access/2009Apr/0084.html
<Bob> scribenick: li
<marklittle> do the dogs get a vote ;-) ?
<marklittle> rofl
no objection to agenda
no objection to minutes
bob: no new issues at this
point
... please review fpwd of 5 specs in 1 week and publish
comments to mailing list
bob: this group is contentious
and not moving toward concensus
... hope to work in more friendly fashion
geoff: ok with ram's proposal
<Bob> http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=6730
6730 accepted with no objection
<Bob> http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=6594
geoff: 6594 and others are joined together
<Bob> ai: Geoff to prepare new proposals for 6594, 6672, and 6673
<Bob> ACTION: Geoff to prepare new proposals for 6594, 6672, and 6673 [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2009/04/14-ws-ra-minutes.html#action01]
<trackbot> Created ACTION-57 - Prepare new proposals for 6594, 6672, and 6673 [on Geoff Bullen - due 2009-04-21].
dug: 6594 are related to others
<Bob> last AI is due before next call
dug: 6594, 6672, and 6673 are somewhat different
daves: 6594 3rd comment links
three proposal already
... dug already finish them
<Bob> email at http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-ws-resource-access/2009Mar/0088.html
geoff: looked the joint proposal and to provide more comments by next week
geoff: raised issues and katy
responded them, need to look them
... request clarifications from katy
katy: explain the reponses
... merge part of rt into t (only fragment feature)
AI: bob to retitle the proposal to "move fragment from rt to t"
wu: like to see the concrete proposal
katy: the proposal is already available from the issue
<Yves> fragments in T seems to not be the ideal place. (like URI fragments are not in HTTP)
geoff: is this merge confusion? we need to discuss this decision: why only part of it instead of all?
daves: basic fragment vs. complex fragment, take basic fragment into T, which is clear
bob: difference between ws-rt fragment and ws-man fragment
daves: not sure, but think ws-rt fragment addresses ws-man requirement
and grid community as well
dug: too much to move all rt into
t, take a phase based approach
... only frag id in difference places
<Yves> how about creating a ws-frag spec? (if you want to extract it from RT)
geoff: still not sure if the use
cases can be solved separately by two specs, instead of using
the merged one
... use cases can't be solved by rt alone?
katy: single spec (merged) will cover all cases, except a few, which can be addressed by extending merge t
<Geoff> that would be fine by us
yves: separating fragment is more reusable for ws-man and grid
katy: fragment is not in the core of t, but in a appendix
daves: fragment is separated in the appendix
geoff: don't think appendix is a
good idea
... many usages of t don't need fragment, 80% don't need, 20%
may need it
wu: yves's idea is good, making it its own standard is more valuable than appendix
dug: if fragment not in t, it may result ad-hoc solution
<asir> too much noise on the line
jeffM: our goal is not just to
make ws-man work, but to make ws-* work
... we need to make decision on our goal
... packaging is not that important, but operations are
<Yves> fragment is relative to a resource, so it fits better alog the EPR definition, but editing ws-addr-core is close to impossible now, otherwise I agree that the content is what matters
geoff: basic functions in base class, more functions in subclass, not sure why changing this design decision
daves: merging frag into t is to
eliminate ad-hoc solutions to frag with t
... don't want ws-man to redo frag with t
<Geoff> dave's thought is worth investigation...
<gpilz> +1 to daves
<Katy> +1 Dave
dug: frag in t is optional, what is the pain?
geoff: it's not completely optional, force people to reprofile ws-t in light of frag merge
<asir> Doug - your phone is noisy
dug: we can make sure it's completely optional, people has to change ws-t anyway
geoff: changing namespace does not justify greater changes
<asir> There are such examples in W3C
<asir> For instance SOAP Part 1 and Part 2
bob: daves' proposal is to make ws-t optional but normative
<asir> Part 1 carries an ad for Part 2
bob: any objection to daves' direction?
ashok: puting in appendix is better to avoid confusion
wu: 3 specs or 2 specs
bob: current proposal is 3
dug: changes to ws-t is necessary, like to see mroe detail
<Katy> My phone keeps breaking up - I need to drop off an re-dial
asir: frag in a separate doc
means all about frag in one doc, not just appendix
... advertisement is ok but how to formulate the normative
language
<asir> We are okay with the precedents set by SOAP, WSDL and WS-A
daves: ws-security may help us with the normative languages
<Katy> Sorry - my phone breaking up again
<Katy> will try to fix
wu: if we can ask other standards using ws-t to make this connection, instead of link frag to ws-t
daves: ws-man using ws-t may not aware frag if frag not in the appendix
<gpilz> how can we tell WSMAN what do do?
<DaveS> +1
<asir2> Gil - are you a member of WS-Man WG?
<gpilz> yes I am
wu: ws-man can specify requirement for ws-t and frag
<asir2> Gil .. you are a powerful voice!
wu: we should let users to decide which to use
<gpilz> asir: loud doesn't help
daves: worry ws-man may choose other way, creating problems
katy: separate specs looses the context of frag spec, we need to make contexts for both ws-t and frag clear
<Geoff> +1 to Bob
bob: ws-addressing is a model we can use
dug: having free choices is not
good for ws-*
... we need to restrict composition choices
asir: ws-addressing and soap 1.2
are good models for multiple documents of one spec
... ws-ra can influence ws-man with good values
... we should respect other bodies choice
gil: ws-man may use ws-ra, but
the schedule is up in the air
... ws-man is just one case that may invent its own frag
yves: thers is a link from frag to ws-t, not the opposite, we need to make requirement of frag clearer
bob: more time to decide direction?
<gpilz> +1 to doug
<gpilz> let's look at the changes to WS-T as stand-alone changes
dug: taking stepwise change to ws-t leading to merge
<Katy> +q
asir: refine requirements for frag
katy: puting appendix on hold, but do changes on the core ws-t, is asir ok with this?
asir: we have issues on those changes too
katy: is it ok to incorporate dialect support, for example?
geoff: why dialect attribute is required?
katy: it provides a simple extension point to add frag and others
dug: 6712 show dialect is more than ext point
asir: ambiguity can be resolved without 6712
dug: element under <create> is ambiguous
asir: one->data, more->data, any particle
<asir> and zero->null
bob: volunteers to discuss frag issue in wiki
geoff and katy volunteered
bye
<Bob> Li, thanks for scribing
This is scribe.perl Revision: 1.135 of Date: 2009/03/02 03:52:20 Check for newer version at http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2002/scribe/ Guessing input format: RRSAgent_Text_Format (score 1.00) Succeeded: s/ws-t is related to frag/thers is a link from frag to ws-t, not the opposite/ Succeeded: s/any particle/data, any particle/ Found ScribeNick: li Inferring Scribes: li WARNING: Replacing list of attendees. Old list: +20756aaaa New list: +1.919.349.aaaa Mark_Little [Microsoft] Bob_Freund +1.408.970.aabb +1.703.860.aacc JeffM Tom_Rutt +0759029aadd +1.408.642.aaee +25669aaff katy Wu_Chou Ashok_Malhotra Yves +1.408.642.aagg +1.919.349.aahh +962.8.6.aaii Default Present: +1.919.349.aaaa, Mark_Little, [Microsoft], Bob_Freund, +1.408.970.aabb, +1.703.860.aacc, JeffM, Tom_Rutt, +0759029aadd, +1.408.642.aaee, +25669aaff, katy, Wu_Chou, Ashok_Malhotra, Yves, +1.408.642.aagg, +1.919.349.aahh, +962.8.6.aaii Present: +1.919.349.aaaa Mark_Little [Microsoft] Bob_Freund +1.408.970.aabb +1.703.860.aacc JeffM Tom_Rutt +0759029aadd +1.408.642.aaee +25669aaff katy Wu_Chou Ashok_Malhotra Yves +1.408.642.aagg +1.919.349.aahh +962.8.6.aaii Agenda: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-ws-resource-access/2009Apr/0084.html WARNING: No meeting chair found! You should specify the meeting chair like this: <dbooth> Chair: dbooth Found Date: 14 Apr 2009 Guessing minutes URL: http://www.w3.org/2009/04/14-ws-ra-minutes.html People with action items: geoff WARNING: Input appears to use implicit continuation lines. You may need the "-implicitContinuations" option.[End of scribe.perl diagnostic output]